The Kings are in the playoffs and are playing an elimination game against, let's say the Detroit. It's an away game and the Wings have the final line change. The Kings are leading a close game and decide now is the time to play the fourth line to give the other lines a rest. Babcock then decides to do some creative coaching and matches their first line against our fourth in a critical time when the Kings are already feeling the pressure.

Now, would you rather have Halpern/Modin and whomever on the ice, a couple of rookies in Clune/Cliche/Möller or "veterans" Ivanans/Harrold/Purcell when Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Holmström are staring you down? I know, it's a very hypothetical situation but situations similar to this will occur on a smaller scale down the stretch all the way to the playoffs.

And yes, obviously we aren't going for the cup this season but why not give the team the best chance to succeed? Personally I prefer the Detroit mold of an experienced, defensively responsible fourth line instead of relying on prospects and rookies who should be in the minors playing 20 minutes a game instead of 10.

I think every time you enter the playoffs, you're naturally going for the cup...but I think I get your point. This isn't "the season" we go all in (i.e. Chicago, NJ) and management starts dumping assets for rentals, etc.

But you bring up a superb point about the 4th line. Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Holmstrom, Kane/Toews/Hossa, Heatley/Marleau/Thornton...they're gonna be looking at that line a lot and hoping to exploit a weakness. Deano's done a wonderful job shoring it up. I'd MUCH rather have Modin/Halpern/______ facing them, and the scary part is that when Willie returns, best case scenario, you could end up with even freaking Stoll, Simmonds, or Richardson there in the blank. That's just sick. That's a far cry from any combination of Cliche/Purcell/Ivanans/Clune/Moller that we could throw out there, not because they're bad players, but due to roles and playoffs.

Do I think it's an 'overpayment' of a trade in a way? Sure. We traded a THEORETICAL top-sixer and a third round pick (which we have an excess of) to shore up our fourth line with a versatile player. I'm actually in the minority, but I AM a little sad we gave up on Teddy...but that poor dude needed to hit the reset button in the worst way, because both due to roster spots and lack of a 'fit', he'd just run out of time here. I agree with JT in that, despite a large number of games with the organization, he never got consistent playing time or consistent line partners. However, others did more with less, and I think that's the main reason he's hit the trail. If he finds success in TB or elsewhere, so be it. But I really don't believe this was an eff up by any stretch of the imagination (unless Purcell goes on to be an 80-90 point player, which obviously was a pretty safe gamble based on what we've seen here).

Do I think it's an 'overpayment' of a trade in a way? Sure. We traded a THEORETICAL top-sixer and a third round pick (which we have an excess of) to shore up our fourth line with a versatile player.

I don't think we over paid. I would rather give up a 3rd and Purcell for Halpern than a second for Eric Belanger.
I think Lombardi paid market price and I am glad the move was made. TM can roll four lines now which is a luxury few teams have.

I am officially volunteering my services as a defensive defenseman for the Kings. While neither fast nor physical, I am certain I am better positionally than Randy Jones.

But FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY, as JT Dutch would argue, I will be "helping the team" by not hurting them on the ice as I can capably sit in the press box, night in and night out, just like Edward "Flutterhands" Purcell did the past 20 games or so. Heck, with more experience and Ice time I may even improve as well.

Exactly. Look at the year we went to the cup. Did you honestly think that year the Kings would be in the finals? Look at the Oilers when they lost to the Canes. Weren't they in 8th in the conference that year going into it? You never know what will happen.

... In 1993, the Kings' roster probably had the most playoff-tested credentials, if you look at experience and playoff man-games, than any other team in the NHL at that time. The nucleus of that team had been to the playoffs for the last four seasons prior to 1993. What was more shocking was that they didn't get to the Finals before that.

JT, you are using team stats (+/- and PK%) on a bad TEAM to make an argument about one player. It don't work that way.

... It would be one thing if he was in the middle of the pack of the team in +/-, but he's not. He's at the bottom of it. I find it curious as to the fact that Jack Johnson has been hammered all season for his +/- and somehow Halpern gets a pass for his.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDM

And you're logic is completely false. IE: Scuderi, OD and Williams have won a cup. Halpern hasn't. Therefore, Halpern has nothing to offer. I don't even need to break that down, but there simply isn't any logic in that thought. Its just you creating threads between those separate thoughts.

... Where's the logic in saying he is a leader? How many points are you willing to give for "leadership" on poor to mediocre teams? And hell, I didn't say he had nothing to offer, I said he didn't have nearly as much to offer as guys who've actually had some playoff success. That's an incorrect assertion? Go ahead and break down for me where a guy who hasn't had success in the postseason has anywhere near as much to offer as someone who's won the Cup. Tell me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDM

From your constant harping that Teddy has never hurt the team, it sounds to me like you prefer a placeholder than a role player. Your point about Halpern not getting any better is quite meaningless as well. Sure, Purcell MAY (this word can not be stressed enough) improve, at varying degrees, from what he is now to great, or to decent or the just marginally better. He may also never go anywhere.

... I prefer a guy who isn't hurting the team at this point who has more than an even chance to get better as he gains experience over a guy who hasn't been a good player for over two years and is well past the point where he's going to improve his game. It's a basic comparison, but do you want a 24 year old who has 25 points and is a -3 in his 91 game career -- or a 33 year old who has 33 points and is a -26 in his last 107 games? Also, how many games did Purcell get to gel with any particular line? How many games was Purcell played out of position? Obviously, he's been a disappointment scoring-wise this season; anyone can see that. So, that's it? It's time to pull the plug and install someone whose best days have been three years plus in the rear-view mirror? What purpose does it serve?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDM

We just don't know. So Halpern won't be getting any better. IS HE SUPPOSED TO? Is there a single person in this entire fanbase or organization or league that expects Halpern to improve upon the game he's been using to cash a nice paycheck since Teddy was still in P.E. class at middle school? No. You won't find a single one.

... No ****.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDM

He wasn't brought here to improve his own game, he was brought here to play his own game, which is to block shots and win face-offs and provide depth. You admit he can do these things well. So what's the problem?

... Aside from winning faceoffs and blocking shots, he's a negative player. I've said this twice now; I'm surprised I have to spell this out for you again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDM

We also know that the Kings have plenty of other draft picks and forward prospects who have made more of their respective opportunities, regardless of quality or special team minutes (Moller, Parse) and others who have just as much promise and potential (Loktionov, Schenn), and the simple fact that there are only so many roster spots to go around.

... Parse has made more use of his minutes than Purcell. No one's arguing that; it's why Parse received more minutes. He earned them. The jury's still out on Moller; he's scored at a bit higher pace than Purcell but has been more mistake-prone. I still like Oscar, though ... and I would feel the same way if he got traded as I am with Purcell being dealt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDM

You usually use such good, if not myopic a times in regards to numbers, logic. Here you simply have none, save for a general departure with the franchise as to where they are at the moment in terms of philosophy, in so far as management, along with the rest of us, are willing to give up some youth and future to bolster the playoff run now, whereas your philosophy seems to be "hell with the playoffs, hang on to the prospects as long as humanly possible."

... Where have I said "to hell with the playoffs" anywhere here? You and I both know who has led them to the playoffs -- the nucleus of the team; Smyth, Doughty, Kopitar, Frolov, Brown, Scuderi, O'Donnell, Simmonds, Johnson, Stoll, the REAL nucleus. THAT group, the elite of the team, is going to determine success and failure this season. How does keeping the prospects on the team affect that nucleus negatively in any way? How does not wanting to trade prospects for washed-up journeymen affect the nucleus positively in any way? How does keeping the cohesion of the team intact somehow fail to improve their chances in the playoffs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDM

Also, once again, you have zero regard for any tact or knowledge by management and coaching and blindly side with the player. Its never the players fault for not making the most of his minutes, its always some elephant in the room or monkey placed on the players back, or better yet, an invisible noose tied around the player's ability to contribute in a meaningful way with the ice time he is given.

... That's a load of **** and you know it, JDM. Are you telling me that someone can't hold management AND players accountable? I don't need to hate players on the team to be a fan of it. I don't need to make up a retarded nickname for a player in some desperate attempt to be funny about a player I don't favor. Just because someone points out legitimate reasons why a player may not be producing does not automatically mean that the player is never at fault. And on top of that, I haven't said Lombardi has been a **** GM either, he's been about average. Like the players, he has his good points and his bad points. I don't agree with the deal, but it's done. Just because I don't agree with YOU does not give you a legitimate reason to dump this sort of hyperbolic pile of ****. I expected that from the trolls, but I didn't from you.

... In 1993, the Kings' roster probably had the most playoff-tested credentials, if you look at experience and playoff man-games, than any other team in the NHL at that time. The nucleus of that team had been to the playoffs for the last four seasons prior to 1993. What was more shocking was that they didn't get to the Finals before that.

I was a fan back then as well. If I remember correctly, we did have players with credentials, but when you look at our lower lines, with the smurf line, etc. I wouldn't have said we would have gone to the cup.

Edmonton in the year against the Hurricane as I mentioned, now, no one saw that.

... It would be one thing if he was in the middle of the pack of the team in +/-, but he's not. He's at the bottom of it. I find it curious as to the fact that Jack Johnson has been hammered all season for his +/- and somehow Halpern gets a pass for his.

Well I have never gotten on Johnson purely because of the bad +/-. I am of the belief that it evens out a bit. Jack has been awful defensively at times and deserved man of those -'s, but at many others he has simply been the victim of a new pairing without cohesion or a simply retarded partner. He is also played almost as much as Doughty, but he ain't no Doughty.

As for Halpern being at the bottom of it, not really. The whole team is one big '-', save for a few special players. Vinny: -7, Malone: -5, Sczcechura: -10, Veilleux: -13, Wright: -9, Fedoruk: -7. And that's just forwards. Meszaros is -18. Halpern is -13, so technically he is tied with Veilleux, and while technically at the bottom of the forward group, is not hugely deviant. If anything, looking at the team +/- confirms that its a crappy team with a player or two with enough talent to stand out.

The other thing I hate about +/- is it does not take quality of competition into account. I know these numbers exist, but the NHL doesn't publicly keep them, and are not in any way factored into the +/- rating. Its a team statistic, and Halpern's +/- bothers me less than Johnson's, because unlike Johnson's +/-, which is not at all consistent with the overall team, Halpern's is not an aberration from the team at large.

Johnson's +/- doesn't tell me how often it was Heatley scoring on him, as opposed to Tootoo. It doesn't tell me how many of those goals went in while Ivanans was blowing his coverage. It just says a bit about the team overall and whether the player differs greatly from his team in this regard, and Halpern most certainly does not. He is slightly worse than the average on his team, which means nothing to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Dutch

... Where's the logic in saying he is a leader? How many points are you willing to give for "leadership" on poor to mediocre teams? And hell, I didn't say he had nothing to offer, I said he didn't have nearly as much to offer as guys who've actually had some playoff success. That's an incorrect assertion? Go ahead and break down for me where a guy who hasn't had success in the postseason has anywhere near as much to offer as someone who's won the Cup. Tell me.

I'm not totally sure what those two sentences are referring to. If you didn't say he had nothing to offer, I apologize. I read your posts as claiming that we didn't need anymore playoff leadership because OD, Scud and Willie had Cup rings. That's how it came off. If that isn't how you meant it, fine. I'm not claiming that Halpern has as much to offer as OD, Scud and Willie, simply that just because the others have MORE experience, doesn't make Halpern's superfluous. Again though, it seems that I misread your initial post and we agree here... which kind of confuses me even more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Dutch

... I prefer a guy who isn't hurting the team at this point who has more than an even chance to get better as he gains experience over a guy who hasn't been a good player for over two years and is well past the point where he's going to improve his game. It's a basic comparison, but do you want a 24 year old who has 25 points and is a -3 in his 91 game career -- or a 33 year old who has 33 points and is a -26 in his last 107 games? Also, how many games did Purcell get to gel with any particular line? How many games was Purcell played out of position? Obviously, he's been a disappointment scoring-wise this season; anyone can see that. So, that's it? It's time to pull the plug and install someone whose best days have been three years plus in the rear-view mirror? What purpose does it serve?

Purcell was played out of position frequently. That I will give you. It bugged me, and he should have probably spent more time on the right side. But again, I see Moller get randomly thrown on a line with Fro and Zus in the middle of a game and he gels just fine. Parse's linemates were far from consistent. He spent time on every line as well, with varying degrees of success. With Purcell, there really was never any spark between him and... well... anyone. He got a chance with everyone, atleast a few games with each, and there really no moment where you said to yourself "I can see these guys developing some chemistry."

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Dutch

... No ****.

Well, ****.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Dutch

... Aside from winning faceoffs and blocking shots, he's a negative player. I've said this twice now; I'm surprised I have to spell this out for you again.

You mean negative based on his +/- here? That's not enough proof for me. If he is blocking shots and winning face-offs on a team that sucks so bad it can't keep the puck out of the net even with those shots being blocked well and face-offs won regularly (52%), again, that just tells me he has been the victim of a team that has failed at nearly every aspect of hockey for the last two years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Dutch

... Parse has made more use of his minutes than Purcell. No one's arguing that; it's why Parse received more minutes. He earned them. The jury's still out on Moller; he's scored at a bit higher pace than Purcell but has been more mistake-prone. I still like Oscar, though ... and I would feel the same way if he got traded as I am with Purcell being dealt.

I would be much more upset if Moller was traded. His style of play fits into the team VERY well, while Purcell's does not. He tried adapting, like Boyle tried, but it didn't go so well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Dutch

... Where have I said "to hell with the playoffs" anywhere here? You and I both know who has led them to the playoffs -- the nucleus of the team; Smyth, Doughty, Kopitar, Frolov, Brown, Scuderi, O'Donnell, Simmonds, Johnson, Stoll, the REAL nucleus. THAT group, the elite of the team, is going to determine success and failure this season. How does keeping the prospects on the team affect that nucleus negatively in any way? How does not wanting to trade prospects for washed-up journeymen affect the nucleus positively in any way? How does keeping the cohesion of the team intact somehow fail to improve their chances in the playoffs?

Just in that you keep talking about the future we gave up when we all admit we gave up future for now and are fine with that. I and most others have said that Purcell may very well become the player he should be on another team, but we just didn't think it was in the cards for him here. And yes, the nucleus is the major reason we are the team we are, obviously. But that doesn't mean the rest of the roster should be filled by just anybody, or by somebody who may be something in the future. If Purcell was eligible to not pass through waivers, then I would hope moreso to keep him and let him shuttle back and forth as his play goes up and down, like Parse. But that was last year for Purcell, and this was the make or break year. It was pretty clear from the outset of the season that this was his year to earn a spot on the team, and he really didn't. The utmost faith and confidence was put in him from the start of training camp, and he disappointed on the ice at every turn. He may not have been awful, but he was FAR from meeting expectations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Dutch

... That's a load of **** and you know it, JDM. Are you telling me that someone can't hold management AND players accountable? I don't need to hate players on the team to be a fan of it. I don't need to make up a retarded nickname for a player in some desperate attempt to be funny about a player I don't favor. Just because someone points out legitimate reasons why a player may not be producing does not automatically mean that the player is never at fault. And on top of that, I haven't said Lombardi has been a **** GM either, he's been about average. Like the players, he has his good points and his bad points. I don't agree with the deal, but it's done. Just because I don't agree with YOU does not give you a legitimate reason to dump this sort of hyperbolic pile of ****. I expected that from the trolls, but I didn't from you.

You have developed a reputation for only arguing the players side of things. Blake, Cammy, Boyle (I think), now this. I know you didn't say that DL was **** or anything, but you have only made strong efforts to point out how Purcell was shafted and that his lack of production has to do with how he has been handled, not how he is as a player or a human being.

I don't know what you mean about the nicknames.

Resort to calling me a troll... fine. Usually the trolls are the ones spouting off the dissident opinions, but now I feel like we are having an argument in between snack time and math class. Perhaps that last bit was a bit of hyperbole. I do like to indulge myself from time to time, but I stand by my point that you have outwardly, in regards to this situation and others, only made mention of things that management or coaching have done to explain away the negative aspects of certain players. If you were to clarify some of your harsher statements with an acknowledgment of other possibilities, I probably wouldn't respond as harshly, like you did in your last post by admitting "Obviously, he's been a disappointment scoring-wise this season." Even though you went on to basically say "so what."